 |
 |
SJS wrote: > My response -- in addition to seeking to strenously emphasize to > these Congresspersons the critical need to support this Udall Bill > -- would be to first do some serious background-research on whether > (and to what extent) these individuals may have thrown their > political weight behind any OTHER legislation (such as Defense > Appropriations?) which DID specifically "earmark funds" for > similarly-focused purposes. Then I'd make the case to them > directly: If they supported "earmarking" so assiduously regarding > those other pieces of legislation, how can they expect to be viewed > (by the electorate?) as "consistent" if they now oppose > "earmarking" regarding the Udall Bill -- especially when the Udall > Bill is so clearly humanitarian in its goals? An example of defense legislation is the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 1996 (S.1124, Public Law 104-106). Funds are designated for specific weapons systems (analogous to specific diseases). Here are excerpts from the digest of the law, obtained from http://thomas.loc.gov: "(Sec. 113) Authorizes the Secretary of the Army to enter into multiyear procurement contracts for Longbow Apache attack helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters. "Subtitle C: Navy Programs - Makes funds authorized for shipbuilding and conversion under this title available for: (1) construction of a third Seawolf attack submarine; and (2) long-lead and advance construction and procurement of components for the FY 1998 and 1999 New Attack Submarines. Further earmarks $10 million of such funds only for participation of Newport News Shipbuilding in the design of the New Attack Submarine.... "(Sec. 135) Authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to: (1) construct six Arleigh Burke class destroyers; (2) enter into contracts in FY 1996 for the construction of three such destroyers; (3) enter into contracts in FY 1997 for the construction of three more such destroyers, subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose; and (4) obligate other available Navy construction funds for such purpose (requiring 30 days' advance congressional notification of any such obligation)." Etc. etc. etc. Earmarking for defense at the specific weapons level of detail is analogous to earmarking for health at the means of treatment level. Doesn't the NIH already decide how the money is allocated at that level? If the non-earmarking principle urged for NIH funding were applied to the military, the admirals and generals would get a lump sum and then decide what weapons to spend it on. The above-mentioned web site contains all the information needed for the research SJS suggests: digests and full text of what was enacted and who voted for it. Phil Tompkins